Dear Med, Please do not take my comments personal. How many times I said this. Nothing personal, nothing against you or your coauthors, your drafts.
Please kindly see inline. On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:45 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Behcet, > > Please see inline. > > Cheers, > Med > >>-----Message d'origine----- >>De : Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email protected]] >>Envoyé : jeudi 18 octobre 2012 21:40 >>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN >>Cc : [email protected] >>Objet : Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: >>draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-04.txt >> >>Hi all, >> >> >>On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:50 AM, >><[email protected]> wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> We submitted an updated version to resolve one open issue >>for the draft. The main changes are: >>> >>> * Remove a normative reference >>> * Add a new section to describe how address translation is done. >>> * Updated the examples to make use of the IPv6 address block >>defined in RFC6676. >>> >>> A detailed diff is available at: >>http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mul >>ticast-04. >>> >>> As suggested by Stig, a message was sent to mboned ML >>(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mboned/current/msg01725.html). >>> >>> We believe this version solves the technical comments raised >>during WGLC and also against -03. >>> >>> There was a request from Behcet to add some normative >>references to the draft but this was not accepted (see the >>mailing list archives). >>> >> >> >>I don't remember what this refers to. > > Med: I'm referring to this > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg04766.html when you > asked > > " > and I would like this be a normative reference. > " > Please see further below. > >> >>But I do remember that this draft does not consider a very significant >>case: IPv6 network may not be multicast enabled. > > Med: This draft assumes multicast capabilities are enabled in the network. > For the case you are referring to, you can use some existing tools (e.g., > AMT). > Or RFC 6224. >> >>If this issue is resolved (it could be resolved by accepting another >>solution, because more than one solution may be accepted for a given >>problem/charter item) then my issues with this draft will be resolved. > > Med: This point was discussed several times (e.g., > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg04767.html). > Med, this issue was discussed in the context of having a merged draft as I claimed that previous chair, Alain Durant requested it. Please, please pay attention to what I am saying now. As Softwire WG has already done in relation to 4rd, more than one drafts can be accepted corresponding to one charter item, I am kindly suggesting we do the same in DS-Lite multicast case as well. No problem with your draft but Softwire may progress another draft such as draft-sarikaya-softwire-dslitemulticast-01.txt. Please support this. Regards, Behcet _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
